I think they finally mentioned in the bottom of the inning that it apparently wasn't reviewable. Why it took that long to get the rule read back to the onfield umpires doesn't make sense if they weren't reviewing it.

As for the path he took, didn't seem out of the ordinary. Yeah, not the letter of the rule, but a right-hander is probably going to run slightly inside the line to be able to reach a base that is COMPLETELY inside the foul line. He ran straight for the base and didn't appear to veer inside to make things more difficult.

I can guarantee you most runners (especially right-handers) are inside that foul line when they run for first.

EDIT: Like Altuve just was on the first out in the bottom of the 8th inning, on that great grab and throw by Rendon for the out.

https://www.umpirebible.com/index.php/ru...nning-lane

I could see Turner being called out if the throw was going to beat him, but that seemed to be in question. It does seem like the rule suggests a runner is interfering if the fielder can't make the play if he's in the way (but he was clearly at the base when that happened, and you have to let the runner have a chance to get to the bag too). The Washington manager was thrown out of the game, even though his team ended up scoring twice (thanks to the Rendon homer). It just seems to be a strange rule and is one that I suspect gets changed during the offseason.

To review, leadoff single by Gomes (Washington #9 batter). Turner dribbles a grounder halfway between the catcher and pitcher. Houston's pitcher picks it up and throws to 1st in a bang-bang play. In my view, Turner beats the throw anyway, but he gets to the bag about when the ball gets there and the throw glances off Gurriel's glove and into short rightfield. Turner and Gomes would be at 2nd and 3rd, but the home plate umpire calls Turner out for interference, and by rule, sends Gomes back to 1st (that's the part that makes zero sense - even if you call Turner out, there should be nuances to the rule that could allow Gomes to stay on 2nd).

They argue, and then review the play but the call stands. Houston makes a pitching change, and after a long delay, Harris gets Eaton to popout to Bregman for out #2. And then Rendon homers into the Crawford Boxes on a 1-1 count I think? If it was 2nd and 3rd and 1 out, Rendon would have been walked I think (although Soto has been super hot).

Thanks for the link. In my judgment, the play met all the criteria listed and doesn't invoke any of the exceptions. Batter is out.

In my mind, the only possible exception is that the interference occurred WHILE the batter was reaching for first base (which is outside the running lane). But the fact that he never took a single step inside the lane seems to negate that argument.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

(10-29-2019 10:11 PM)gsloth Wrote:  I can guarantee you most runners (especially right-handers) are inside that foul line when they run for first.

EDIT: Like Altuve just was on the first out in the bottom of the 8th inning, on that great grab and throw by Rendon for the out.

True, but irrelevant. The runner only violates the rule if they run outside the lane AND interfere with the throw/catch. Both happened for Turner. Both did not happen for Altuve.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Rendon just ties Bregman's record set earlier in the World Series with a two-run double (5 RBI in a World Series game is the most ever by a 3rd baseman - now he and Bregman co-own the record). Houston down 7-2 in the 9th and we're likely looking at Game 7 tomorrow.

Home teams have stunk it up thus far.

Thank goodness Verlander won't pitch on Wednesday. He's the Warren Moon of MLB pitchers - great in the regular season, choker in the biggest postseason games.

I think the Astros' obsession with getting homefield throughout the playoffs made them pitch Verlander and Cole way too much down the stretch (plus they were going after personal milestones like 300 K's). Verlander led the majors in IP at age 36? That's crazy. He's got nothing left in his tank. Cole at least rebounded from a rough 1st game to pitch well in G5, but he's also 7 years younger.

If Houston loses tonight, they'll end up 5-5 at home in the postseason after going 60-21 at MMP in the regular season.

But I do like Houston's chances tonight. Greinke needs to be sharp, but they need to go to Urquidy early if there are any signs of trouble. Stay away from James, Peacock and Presley at all costs. Washington's pen is pretty fresh too though with Corbin and Sanchez available - but you have to wonder if Scherzer is truly healthy enough to pitch.

I have generally felt that Hinch does a good job and that his moves in this WS have been good--giving Alvarez the start in left field in DC turned out to be genius. But I wonder if sending Verlander out on short rest in game 4 of the first round may have had lingering negative effects. It struck me at the time as sort of a panic move, and quite frankly Verlander didn't pitch that badly, it was more an offense that only produced 1 run that was responsible for that loss. And I'm not sure they were confident enough of Urquidy to trust him at that point. I guess what it really shows is 3 starters that you trust are not really enough for the post season.

(10-29-2019 10:21 PM)chrisc Wrote:  Thanks for the link. In my judgment, the play met all the criteria listed and doesn't invoke any of the exceptions. Batter is out.

In my mind, the only possible exception is that the interference occurred WHILE the batter was reaching for first base (which is outside the running lane). But the fact that he never took a single step inside the lane seems to negate that argument.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

That's my take as well. I don't have personal experience in baseball umpiring, but on general principle it would seem that a batter who makes no effort at all to use the lane is making himself liable to be called if there is even a colorable hint of interference.

(10-30-2019 12:23 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 10:21 PM)chrisc Wrote:  Thanks for the link. In my judgment, the play met all the criteria listed and doesn't invoke any of the exceptions. Batter is out.
In my mind, the only possible exception is that the interference occurred WHILE the batter was reaching for first base (which is outside the running lane). But the fact that he never took a single step inside the lane seems to negate that argument.

That's my take as well. I don't have personal experience in baseball umpiring, but on general principle it would seem that a batter who makes no effort at all to use the lane is making himself liable to be called if there is even a colorable hint of interference.

Agree. If the batter uses the lane properly and has to step back across the line with his final step in order to reach first base, then that's one thing. This was not that thing.

Hinch said if the call went the other way he wouldn't have challenged it. He didn't think it was interference. He said Turner ran in a straight line to first.

Any RH batter trying to beat out an infield hit is going to run straight to the bag. The running lane doesn't line up for them, which is one of the issues with the rule as written.

The other issue last night was the umpire called an out on a rule that is almost never enforced during the regular season.

I think if the 1b had not lost his glove it would not have been called.

(10-30-2019 03:49 PM)grol Wrote:  Any RH batter trying to beat out an infield hit is going to run straight to the bag. The running lane doesn't line up for them, which is one of the issues with the rule as written.

That's not an issue with the rule; the runner just needs to conform to the rule. Yes, the rule requires the runner to take a path other than the shortest path, in order to be immune from interference. The runner can take a shorter path if he wants, but at his own risk. He's free to make that choice, but he has to accept the consequences of this choice.

(10-30-2019 03:49 PM)grol Wrote:  The other issue last night was the umpire called an out on a rule that is almost never enforced during the regular season.

I don't think that's true. I have seen it enforced pretty much whenever (1) the runner violates the rule and (2) interference results.

(10-30-2019 03:17 PM)bobreinhold1 Wrote:  Hinch said if the call went the other way he wouldn't have challenged it. He didn't think it was interference. He said Turner ran in a straight line to first.

"Interference" and "running in a straight line" are not mutually exclusive. From where Turner started, running in a straight line to first base IS likely to be interference.

A good example of why the opinions of coaches and players on rules matters are almost never authoritative.

(10-30-2019 04:53 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 03:17 PM)bobreinhold1 Wrote:  Hinch said if the call went the other way he wouldn't have challenged it. He didn't think it was interference. He said Turner ran in a straight line to first.

"Interference" and "running in a straight line" are not mutually exclusive. From where Turner started, running in a straight line to first base IS likely to be interference.

A good example of why the opinions of coaches and players on rules matters are almost never authoritative.

Even if Turner runs inside the runner's lane, it's probably interference, because the throw was so far off-line and inside, though maybe the umpire doesn't call him on it. But maybe he does.

This is a rule that is probably going to get updated at some point in the next couple of years. There is reporting that says this rule was already under review for updates for cases like this (and the previous Bellinger play in the World Series), where it's a lot higher visibility.

The challenge is going to be making it seem like common sense, without all of these various stipulations and special cases. Good luck with that (as the NFL continues to discover).

And while it may be how the reporting shaking out (and the reporting angle they choose to take), it certainly seemed like a lot of folks inside the game recognized it was a bad rule that (in this case) bails out the defense for a bad throw. There are certainly cases where the runner is trying to make the throw harder, but this one just feels wrong.

It was interesting to listen to Mark Teixeira on ESPN after the game talking about how you might try to throw into the runner in situations like that where you're probably not going to get the out, to try to get the interference call instead (in part to get the runner(s) returned to their original base). I'm not sure that's what the pitcher had in mind, but it sounds like it's part of the potential strategy, too.

As I said last night, the runner on 2nd having to return to 1st seems to be the most silly part of that rule. Even the baseball purists probably can't figure out a good reason why that portion of the rule exists.

Anthony Rendon's plate appearances in the 7th inning or later of the Nationals' five elimination games this postseason:

Walk, double, home run, double, home run, double, home run.

Rendon homers on Greinke's lone bad pitch all night. Two batters later, Kendrick's homer off Harris gives Washington the 3-2 lead. Houston has left 11 runners on base in 7 innings?

Astros are going to have to have some late inning heroics of their own now.

ETA - Rendon F8 in the 8th ends that perfect streak.

No joy in Houston tonight.